Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bolm v. Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Department, 969 P.2d 200.

29 citing documents.

Goldwater v. City of Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Goldwater v. City of Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
By definition, the Carlson balancing test is applied in a case-by-case manner, ¶13 (App. 1998) (citing cases), with substantial deference owed to the superior court’s factual findings, see Scottsdale Unified Sch.
Matthew Abraham ph.D. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Explained Matthew Abraham ph.D. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
As we explained in Bolm v. Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Dep’t, “Depending on the nature and volume of the documents at issue, an in camera inspection may further the interests of judicial economy in many cases by obviating the need for lengthy evidentiary hearings.” ¶45 For example, -92 (App. 1995), the
Jarron Smith v. Town of Marana 524 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
Jarron Smith v. Town of Marana 524 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
of Tucson Police Dep’t, ).
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Bolm v. Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Dep’t, -42, ¶ 19 (App. 1998).
Reyes v. Gilbert 447 P.3d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Reyes v. Gilbert 447 P.3d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See generally Bolm v. Custodian of Records of the Tucson Police Dep’t, n.4, ¶ 11 (App. 1998).
In Re Mh2015-000579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In Re Mh2015-000579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Burton, ¶ 16 (App. 2003); -42, ¶ 19 (App. 1998); ).
Beau Hodai v. the City of Tucson and Tucson Police Department 365 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Beau Hodai v. the City of Tucson and Tucson Police Department 365 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Bolm v. 4 HODAI v. CITY OF TUCSON Opinion of the Court Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Dep’t, (“A person’s right to public records under [§ 39-121] is not conditioned on his or her showing, or a court finding, that the documents are relevant to anything.”).
Lake v. City of Phoenix 207 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Lake v. City of Phoenix 207 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See Cox Ariz. Publ’ns, , Bohn v. Custodian of Records of the Tucson Police Dep’t, ¶ 7
Phoenix New Times, L.L.C. v. Arpaio 177 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Phoenix New Times, L.L.C. v. Arpaio 177 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Cox Ariz. Publ’ns, , Bolm v. Custodian of Records of the Tucson Police Dep’t, ¶ 7
West Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office 165 P.3d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
West Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office 165 P.3d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Griffis v. Pinal County 156 P.3d 418 Ariz. 2007
Griffis v. Pinal County 156 P.3d 418 Ariz. 2007
See, e.g., Cox Ariz. Publ’ns, 175 Ariz. at 15, 852 P.2d at 1199; Carlson, 141 Ariz. at 491, 687 P.2d at 1246; Mathews, 75 Ariz. at 80-81, 251 P.2d at 896-97; -41 ¶ 14, -06 (App. 1998); Church of Scientology, 122 Ariz. at 339, 594 P.2d at 1035.
Griffis v. Pinal County 141 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Griffis v. Pinal County 141 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
At oral argument, PNI referred us to Cox Arizona Publications
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance, rural/metro, City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance, rural/metro, City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
v. Burton, P.3d 70 (App. 2003); P.2d 200 (App. 1998).
Primary Consultants, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Recorder 111 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Primary Consultants, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Recorder 111 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
See Bolm v. Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Dep’t, ¶ 15 , (“In view of ...
A.H. Belo Corp. v. Mesa Police Department 42 P.3d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002